No. Moderation is about allowing objectionable content at all (or at the very least putting up roadblocks to passive consumption). It's different from allowing objectionable content, letting users seek it out but not promoting it. And it's yet another thing than not only allowing it, but also proactively putting it in front of somebody's eyeballs.
Seems like semantic quibbles to me, but then we're talking about law and computers...
The distinction between "conduit" and "publisher" seems compelling to me. Once a company has pierced the veil and looked at the content of the messages they transmit to me it doesn't really matter how they are modifying the stream they still should be liable for what they transmit.
E.g. if someone uses Twitter to send 12-year actress Jenna Ortega a photograph of a penis then Twitter should be liable for aiding and abetting child abuse. (In my opinion.)
